Where a jury convicted a defendant of murder in the first degree, the conviction must be upheld, as (1) a 911 recording was correctly admitted into evidence, (2) it was not unfair for the prosecutor to play the recording during closing argument and (3) the judge’s jury instructions on self-defense contained no reversible error.

Where a defendant was convicted of manslaughter after claiming that he acted in self-defense, the conviction should not be vacated even though the defendant was not notified in advance that the jurors would be instructed that they could consider evidence concerning the defendant's prior violent conduct to determine who the first aggressor was.

Where a defendant was convicted of assault and battery, that conviction must be affirmed, as (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to continue the trial, (2) there was sufficient evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense, (3) the judge did not err in instructing the jury about self-defense and (4) there were no errors in the prosecutor’s closing argument.

Where the defendant appeals from convictions of armed assault with intent to kill and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, the trial judge did not err in (1) refusing to allow evidence the defendant claimed would have been relevant to determine whether the victim was the first aggressor, (2) refusing to give an instruction on self-defense that included specific language on mistake or (3) instructing the jury on the commonwealth's burdens of proof.

Where a Superior Court jury convicted a defendant of murdering her boyfriend, a new trial must be ordered because the trial judge (1) erroneously allowed the commonwealth to introduce highly prejudicial evidence of the defendant's prior bad acts and (2) later declined to provide an instruction as to the excessive use of force in self-defense that was supported by the evidence.

Where a defendant was convicted by a jury of assault and battery, the verdict must be set aside based on the trial judge’s failure to give a self-defense jury instruction. “… The evidence at trial supported an instruction on self-defense. ...

Where the defendant appeals his murder conviction by alleging various evidentiary and procedural errors, as well as ineffective assistance of trial counsel, his arguments lack merit and thus he is not entitled to a new trial or a reduction of the verdict to a lesser degree of guilt.

Where a defendant was convicted of resisting arrest, (1) the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense and (2) this error gave rise to a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice that requires reversal of the decision and remand of the case for a new trial.